GOP strikes early in global warming battle (3 bills would hamstring EPA)

Yahoo ^ | 1/06/11 | Dina Cappiello

[Libloather]

GOP strikes early in global warming battle
3 bills introduced in House would hamstring EPA efforts to reduce global warming pollution
Dina Cappiello, Associated Press
Thursday January 6, 2011, 5:17 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The new Congress just got to work, but House Republicans are already moving to try to block the Obama administration from taking action on global warming.

GOP lawmakers have introduced several bills that would hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward with regulations to reduce heat-trapping pollution from factories and other sources. The bills are part of a plan by House Republicans to reverse what they consider job-killing policies of the administration.

The bills introduced by Rep. Ted Poe of Texas, Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia would stymie the EPA in different ways.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who is...

[upchuck]

They’ve read the constitution. They’ve notified Justice that they are looking into the Civil Rights. They introduced legislation to fire the commie czars. And now they are blocking Cap and Trade.

AND, they introed a bill that will take Internet control from the FCC and give it to Congress where it belongs.

I've been concerned about the pubs. They had a great first day. May God give them many more.

Here's a great way for somebody in DC to make money. Buy a bunch of old time paper grocery bags. Cut holes for eyes, nose and mouth. Stroll the halls of the Capital handing the bags out to RATS. When they ask, "What's this for?" respond, "To contain the mess when your head explodes." LOL.

[okie01]

A bill that would have placed a limit on heat-trapping gases died in the Senate last year, after it passed the then Democratic-led House. Boxer said there are no plans to pursue another one because there are not enough votes.

Has it occurred to BaBa that, if there aren't enough votes in the Senate to regulate C02 and the House is now dead set against the concept, that it might possibly be a bad idea -- one without any voter or political support?

Of course, voter resistence has never caused the Democrats to change course.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

cutting the EPA budget by 50%

50%?

Screw that. Give em ten bucks.

[Blood of Tyrants]

They can do more.

A letter to your senators and representatives:

Dear _______________, it has become increasingly obvious that the president intends to use the power of the MANY governmental agencies to bypass the will of the people and Congress. For that reason, it is imperative for Congress to reclaim the power it has abdicated to the executive branch. I propose a simple amendment that be put in EVERY bill voted on by Congress until it passes. The wording is as similar to the following:

“No government agency, organization, or entity created by Congress in the past or future shall have legislative or judicial powers. For the purpose of this amendment, “legislative power” shall be construed to mean the making of any rule violation of which renders a citizen, legal entity, corporation, or company of any state or the United States to imprisonment, fine, excessive or punitive fee, or other punishment. “Judicial power” shall be construed to mean, the holding of any evidentiary hearing not presided over by an Article III court or the issuance of findings which result in imprisonment, fine, or punishment of a citizen, legal entity, corporation, or company of any state or the United States.

Under this law, all current rules implemented by any government agency, organization, or entity created by Congress that has legislative or judiciary powers as defined above will become null and void five years from the date of passage unless approved by normal constitutional means.”

Please consider this carefully.

Sincerely, _____________

[Marine_Uncle]

Notice how the press is still in total denial of the scam...
"... reduce heat-trapping pollution from factories and other sources."
They just cannot come around to using more honest language.
But good for our 211 HR Congress. They are getting the ball rolling in the right direction on the AGW scam.

[Marine_Uncle]

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California must be one of biggest assh*les in the Senate. After all Inholfe tried to explain to her. Either that or she is invested heavily in green crap.
Or perhaps she is so deeply inset within the radical Socialist movement at this point she is just dying to see more industrial, economic harm be instituted.

[dools0007world]

Yessiree—Looks our newly elected conservative boys and girls did some homework before thet got to DC. I love the way their waying right in.

Can’t have had much time for the Congressional Orientation I think. I think the demrats and RIBNOs will be having several night caps tonight before bed.

[Democrat_media]

God Bless the Republicans!

[eyeamok]

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is arguably the dumbest person in all of washington, They Are Changing the Law, so what does she intend the EPA to follow???The NEW LAW or The Old one??

[Mariner]

Despite Boxer and her “tools”, there are not enought votes in the Senate to block this. AT LEAST a dozens dim Senators will cross the line for this one.

[bIlluminati]

Can I put their heads on pikes?

"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this ..."

[Nuc 1.1]

I am broken hearted.;D)

[ModelBreaker]

“Give em ten bucks.”

Sounds good to me. I was trying to be a moderate :)

[bIlluminati]

Under this law, all current rules implemented by any government agency, organization, or entity created by Congress that has legislative or judiciary powers as defined above will become null and void five years from the date of passage unless approved by normal constitutional means.”

Make it by the end of 2012, unless you are certain we’ll do better in 2013. Any regs advanced by the agencies have been and are merely suggestions unless and until Congress votes on them.

And make any future regs null and void until Congress votes on and approves them, signed by the President or over his veto, and any attempt to enforce them be considered extortion, with the usual penalties for extortion. And make any unConstitutional law null and void, with enforcement considered theft under color of law. And throw in “Ignorance of the Constitution is no excuse.”

[Tzimisce]

And the amount of money allocated to the EPA for the year 2011 shall be zero.

[TheOldLady]

We will make the House Republicans aware that we are watching their every move as a hawk watches the mice in the field. One false move, and they will be destroyed.

Keep purging RINOs. Keep up the pressure. Know the issues and what they’re doing. Praise them when they’re reconstructing our country, and eliminate them when they slip.

Zero tolerance for ANY leftist vote.

[TnGOP]

I sent a letter to my new congressman today congratulating him and letting him know that we will be watching him - especially his votes.

[swarthyguy]

>bullsh** “home lead certification” of contractors that the EPA

Imagine a 100 year old home with say, three layers of paint over the past century, with detailing - wainscotting, eggshells, molding, wooden doorstops, etc. etc.

The process to certify it lead free could run into a couple of hundred thousand dollars.......

It is already a requirement in MA if you are gonna sell your house to a family with kids.

[supercat]

Another couple of laws I'd like:

1. Provide that the federal government must show, in any prosecution, that the nature of the defendant's conduct would interfere with the performance of the federal government's explicit legitimate enumerated powers (if allowing some activity would not interfere with an explicit power, then its prohibition wouldn't be necessary to effect that power);
2. Recognize the right of criminal defendants to have many key factual matters determined by a jury; including:
   1. Whether a particular search was conducted in reasonable fashion, and whether an officer seeking a search warrant had reasonable probable cause based upon direct observations of himself or persons related their observations under oath.
   2. Whether a particular punishment would be reasonable or excessive, given the particulars of the defendant's conduct and the circumstances surrounding it.
   3. Whether a particular fact or line of argument is irrelevant.
   4. In federal trials, whether the government met its obligation to demonstrate that their actions were based upon legitimate federal authority.
3. Explicitly provide that there is not, and cannot legitimately be, any civil or criminal immunity for government agents who knowingly act in illegitimate fashion.
4. Explicitly provide that a defendant's demonstrable reasonable belief in the legitimacy of his actions should, at a jury's discretion, be a defense against criminal prosecution, but not civil restitution. The phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is properly applied in cases where the defendant shouldn't have been ignorant of the law, but not e.g. in cases where statutes and regulations are so complicated that nobody really understands them.

With regard to allowing juries to decide relevance, it would clearly be impractical to allow defendants carte blanche to put anything they want before a jury with no restrictions. Defendants could easily introduce fake but apparently-compelling evidence of their innocence, without giving the state a chance to scrutinize and refute it. Further, cases could get dragged out forever if defendants had unlimited time to put forth their case and could bring in as much arbitrary testimony as they saw fit. Nonetheless, I would suggest that if knowing some fact about a case would cause a jury to acquit, that's a pretty strong indication that the fact is relevant, even though prosecutors and judges might not want a jury to acquit on the basis of such information. I would suggest that a reasonable balance would be to require that in most cases when a line of questioning is blocked on the basis of claimed "irrelevant", the defendant should have the right to inform the jury what line of reasoning was blocked, and demand that the state justify such blocking for the jury (who could make of that information what they will). If the defendant in a federal marijuana prosecution wants to introduce evidence that he had a prescription and the federal prosecutors don't want to allow it, they should have to tell the jury that they are disallowing any evidence the defendant might want to introduce regarding prescriptions, so as to prevent the jury from wrongly presuming that no such evidence existed.

[Pride in the USA]

Go, GOP!!!!!!!!!